Effects of Input-Based vs. Output-Based Instruction on Vocabulary Learning and Retention by Iranian Young EFL Learners

Document Type : Research Article

Author

• Mohammad Amiryousefi

Department of English Language and Literature, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v54i3.88773

Abstract

The present study investigated the comparative effects of input vs. output-based instruction on vocabulary acquisition and retention of young Iranian EFL (English as a foreign language) learners. To this end, 45 Iranian EFL learners aged 6–7 were divided into three groups; control group, input-based group, and output-based group. The students in the input-based instruction were not required to use the target vocabulary items. The target vocabulary items were only presented to them via input-based tasks. In contrast, in the output-based group, the students were required to use the vocabulary items by doing output-based tasks. After four weeks of instruction, the two groups took two types of vocabulary tests (listening comprehension and production tests) as post- and delayed tests. The findings revealed that both input-based and output-based instruction helped the participants to gain both receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. In general, the results of the present study can support the idea put forth by scholars such as Long (2015) that adhering to a single method is not beneficial, and language instructors should use a variety of methods based on their language learners’ characteristics and needs.

Keywords

• Vocabulary Acquisition
• Input-Based Instruction
• Production-Based Instruction
• Task-Based Language Teaching
• Young Learners

20.1001.1.22285202.1400.54.3.5.6

References

Alqahtani, M. (2015). The importance of vocabulary in language learning and how to be taught. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(3), 21-34.

Amiryousefi, M. (2016). The differential effects of two types of task repetition on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency in computer-mediated L2 written production: A focus on computer anxiety. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1052-1068.

Chung, T. M., & Nation, P. (2003). Technical vocabulary in specialized texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 103.

Coady, J., & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

De La Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 81-112.

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.

Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 285-301.

Erlam, R., & Ellis, R. (2019). Input-based tasks for beginner-level learners: An approximate replication and extension of Erlam & Ellis (2018). Language Teaching, 52(4), 490-511.

Fakher Ajabshir, Z. (in press). The relative efficacy of input enhancement, input flooding, and output-based instructional approaches in the acquisition of L2 request modifiers. Language Teaching Research.

Fazeli, R., & Bagheri, M. S. (2015). The effect of input, input-output and output-input modes of teaching on vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 4(2), 033-052.

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Gholami, N., & Farvardin, M. T. (2017). Effects of input-based and output-based instructions on Iranian EFL learners’ productive knowledge of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 123-130.

Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1731223.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last result in foreign language reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 285-99.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, England: Longman.

Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.

Krashen, S. (1998). Comprehensible output? System, 26(2), 175-182.

Kwon, S. (2006). Roles of output and task design on second language vocabulary acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Florida, FL. Lantolf, J. (2003). Intrapersonal communication and internalization in the second language classroom. In A. Kozulin, V. S. Ageev, S. Miller, & B. Gindis (Eds.), Vygotsky’s theory of education in cultural context (pp. 349-370). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Teaching and principles in language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Maftoon, P., & Sharif Haratmeh, M. (2013). Effects of input and output-oriented tasks

Mahmoudabadi, Z., & Soleimani, H. (2014). The impact of interactive output tasks on developing vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 93-113.

Mahmoudabadi, Z., Soleimani, H., Jafarigohar, M., & Iravani, H. (2015). The effect of sequence of output tasks on noticing vocabulary items and developing vocabulary knowledge of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 5(1), 18-30.